Loughborough Case Study Profile

Section 2: Open and Responsible Research Assessment – Current Strategic Activity

Please outline any current initiatives that address recognition and reward for open research within the context of research assessment practices, e.g., recruitment, promotion, probation and annual performance development review (max 250 words).

Loughborough has recently developed some new promotion criteria which seek to provide three alternative pathways to promotion. These include a general pathway, a research & innovation pathway, or an education & student experience pathway. All require citizenship and leadership in order to progress. A new element under the baseline research & innovation requirements, requires applicants to centre not only the quality but the visibility, including the openness, of research outputs. Examples include “the production of open research outputs, for example, sharing of data and code, materials, technology, exhibitions of work and digital outputs.”

Section 3: Open and Responsible Research Assessment – Planned Activity

Please outline any planned activity to address recognition and reward for open research within the context of research assessment reform (max 250 words).

To further ensure the fair internal assessment of the quality and visibility of research outputs across different disciplines and by non-expert assessors, Loughborough utilized the INORMS (International Network of Research Management Societies) SCOPE Framework to co-design a new approach to output assessment called ‘Evidence-Informed Output Narratives’ (EONs).

The new approach invites researchers to select up to three outputs about which they can write a short, structured narrative, providing evidence for their quality (external validation) and reach (visibility and influence) using evidence selected from a menu of evidence and indicators. The menu was developed in conjunction with colleagues across the university, starting with those less well-served by existing publication metrics, and includes evidence related to the openness of outputs, data and software.

Schools have weighted each of the forms of evidence (items in the menu) by discipline to tailor this approach to disciplinary norms and further support assessors in making appropriate assessments. There is no expectation that all forms of evidence are called upon and, in some disciplines, staff may be content to make use of only a small number of them.

For outputs with multiple contributors, researchers should describe their contribution. The menu is intended to be a ‘living’ document to which other categories of evidence may be added, removed, or reweighted over time with agreement from the relevant disciplinary communities.

The approach has been approved by Research & Innovation Committee and endorsed by Senate. It is now being prepared ready for roll-out in the Autumn 2024.

 Page top